By Plenary Sessions: Riina Sikkut

The main opponent is the government and its ministers (including both the Minister of Social Affairs and the acting Prime Minister), who are being criticized for their budget priorities and cuts. The criticism is policy-based, focusing specifically on the disregard for regional impacts and the underfunding of the social sector. This leaves the impression that the government fails to consider the broader consequences of its decisions.

There is no direct mutual criticism, but the speaker notes that the restoration of proportions failed to gain broad-based support, which is why it was not included in the draft bill. The criticism is aimed more at the consequences of the previous legislative process (the change resulting from the administrative reform) than at specific political opponents.

The main criticism is aimed at the governing coalition and Prime Minister Kristen Michal, who are accused of breaking promises regarding tax stability and the irresponsible stewardship of state finances. The criticism is intense and centers on political blunders (lowering taxes using borrowed money) and a general lack of accountability. The speaker is extremely critical of the government's policies.

The primary targets are the governing coalition, particularly the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, who stand accused of avoiding responsibility and political short-sightedness. The criticism is intense, centered on political recklessness, the exacerbation of social injustice, and the desire to teach the opposition a lesson. There is no willingness to compromise, as evidenced by the proposal to reject the budget entirely.

The primary opposition is directed against the budget policy of the minister and the government, criticizing its unrealistic nature and the lack of a credible plan to cover the 2030 budget deficit. The criticism is both technical and political, focusing on the long-term impact of political decisions and the lack of societal consensus regarding tax increases.

The criticism is aimed at the minister's inaction or the shifting of responsibility onto local governments, who operate the schools. They are demanding concrete guidelines for state schools and proactive steps to alleviate inequality. The criticism is policy-driven and focuses on the absence of solutions.